– 212 –

Chapter v.
Sir George Gipps.

When Gibbon Wakefield clandestinely despatched the ‘Tory’ in May, 1839, he quickened the movements of the Colonial Secretary, the Marquis of Normanby, who informed the Lords of the Treasury, in June, that “circumstances had transpired which have further tended to force upon Her Majesty's Government the adoption of measures for the providing for the government of the Queen's subjects resident in or resorting to New Zealand. With that view it is proposed that certain parts of the islands should be added to the colony of New South Wales as a dependency of that Government, and Captain Hobson, R.N., who has been selected to proceed as British Consu' will also be appointed Lieutenant-Governor.”

On the 15th June, the boundaries of New South Wales were accordingly extended under the great seal; and on the 13th July, Hobson was made Lieutenant-Governor of “any territory which is or may be acquired in sovereignty by Her Majesty”in New Zealand.

With instructions (from Lord Normanby) Hobson sailed from England in H.M.S. ‘Druid,' three months after Colonel Wake field's departure. When he arrived in Sydney, Wakefield's proceedings were known, and if the clear judgment of Governor Gipps had not been available to guide him Hobson might have been sorely distressed. But Gipps would not have shrunk from contest with Gibbon Wakefield, and that astute contriver had sent creatures inferior to himself to carry out his designs.

Before Hobson left Sydney, he took, 14th January, 1840, the usual oaths of office as Lieutenant-Governor. On the 15th, Gipps, who had received a commission extending his own

– 213 –

authority to any territory of which the “sovereignty has been or may be acquired in New Zealand,”communicated a copy of his own commission to Hobson, together with Hobson's commission as Lieutenant-Governor. He also gave stringent instructions to Hobson. As to the extent of land to be acquired the Marquis of Normanby had given commands, and Gipps would “take the earliest possible measures for carrying them into effect.’

With details as to Treasury regulations and estimates, these pages need not be encumbered further than by noting that Gipps gave specific instructions. Hobson could not pardon criminals, but might stay execution of legal sentence, and could only recommend to Gipps persons to be appointed magistrates.

But the rod with which the New Zealand Company and all other traffickers in Maori land were to be controlled, was shown by a Proclamation—(framed in conformity with Lord Normanby's instructions, and forthwith published both in Sydney and at the Bay of Islands)—that the Queen did not think it “expedient to recognize as valid any titles to land in New Zealand which are not derived from or confirmed by Her Majesty.”

Hobson's own proclamation was prepared for him under the careful eye of Gipps. Quoting and reiterating the Queen's pleasure in the matter, and averring that the “rights and interests of the natives”were part of her care, he added that to dispel apprehension that there was a desire to dispossess “owners of land acquired on equitable conditions,”he proclaimed that a Commission would be appointed under powers “derived from the Governor and Legislative Council of New South Wales to inquire into and report on all claims to such lands.”All purchases made after publication of the Proclamation would be “considered as absolutely null and void, and will not be confirmed or in any way recognized by her Majesty.'

Hobson sailed from Sydney on the 19th January, in H.M.S. ‘Herald,’ and arrived at Kororarika on the 29th. His Commission and Proclamation were published on the 13th January, 1840. Thus all British rovers were brought into subjection; and the first ship despatched by the New Zealand Company with immigrants to Port Nicholson, the ‘Aurora,’ arrived on the 22nd January, and landed them to find that not the company but the

– 214 –

British Government would control them. There still remained a foreign element to deal with.

Gipps, aware that there were designs to form a French settlement, warned Hobson (25th January, 1840) that, as the Colonial Secretary's instructions were entirely silent on the subject, the inference to be drawn was that until territory could be “acquired in sovereignty by the Queen,”Hobson could not be brought into contact with foreigners, but that after such acquisition foreigners would stand towards the Government in “the same relation as they do in any other colonial possession of the Crown.”Hobson was to abstain from agitating the question in any manner; and as to fishing and resort to harbours by foreigners, to take no step until Her Majesty's pleasure might be signified

Hobson's arrival extinguished Busby's position as British Resident; but Busby gave loyal assistance to the new-comer. The missionaries also heartily welcomed the representative of that power to which alone they looked to save their disciples from the evils of a lawless occupation of the country.

The English inhabitants presented an address to Hobson on the 3rd February. Lord Normanby's instructions contained full directions as to the treaty to be made. Hobson invited the chiefs, by notices printed in Maori, to a meeting in order to consider a draft treaty; which, when he had prepared an English copy, he called upon Henry Williams (4th February) to translate. He informed Williams that he was authorized by the Secretary of State to appeal to him, and the Bishop of Australia by letter to Williams had strongly urged upon the missionaries as a body, to exercise their influence to induce the chiefs “to make the desired surrender of sovereignty to her Majesty.”

On the 30th January, certain Europeans essayed to poison the minds of the Maoris by taunting them as slaves because Hobson had arrived to establish the rule of the Queen.

On the 5th February, a dramatic scene was enacted in Maori land. Not now Ruatara, but Captain Nias of H.M.S. ‘Herald,’ was master of the ceremonies. Tents decorated with flags were arranged round an area containing a platform at Waitangi, on the north shore of the Bay of Islands. At twelve o'clock (after receiving Europeans at Busby's house) Hobson, supported by Nias and his officers, and “followed by all the principal European

– 215 –

inhabitants in procession,”took his seat on the platform. The chiefs were seated around it, and the Europeans were behind them. Henry Williams was ready with the treaty in Maori, carefully examined beforehand by Busby. Hobson spoke to the chiefs, Henry Williams interpreting. “I explained (Hobson wrote to Gipps), and I assured them in the most fervent manner that they might implicitly rely on the good faith of Her Majesty's Government in the transaction.”

Williams read and explained the treaty clause by clause. It guaranteed to chiefs, tribes, and “to the respective individuals and families thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands, and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same.”¹ Williams said that the missionaries fully approved of the treaty, and that it was an act of love towards the Maoris on the part of the Queen, who desired to secure to them their property, rights, and privileges.

The chiefs were invited to speak. Twenty or thirty spoke, “five or six of whom opposed me (Hobson) with great violence.… At this crisis the Hokianga chiefs under Nene and Patuone made their appearance, and nothing could have been more seasonable. It was evident that some underhand influence had been at work. The chiefs Revewah and Jakahra, who are followers of the Roman Catholic bishop, were the principal opposers, and the arguments were such as convinced me they had been prompted.”Revewah said (pointing to Hobson): “Send the man away. Do not sign the paper: if you do you will be reduced to slavery and be compelled to break stones for the roads. Your land will be taken from you, and your dignity as chiefs will be destroyed.”

At the first pause, the great Ngapuhi leader, Waka Nene, “came forward and spoke with a natural eloquence that surprised all the Europeans, and evidently turned aside the temporary

– 216 –

feeling which had been created.”He appealed to his countrymen to place confidence in the English; and then he, too, turned to Hobson, and said: “You must be our father. You must not allow us to become slaves. You must preserve our customs and never permit our lands to be wrested from us.”Other chiefs supported Nene, and one of them having reproached a noisy chief for rudeness to Hobson, the offender, Kitigi, “sprang forward and shook me violently by the hand, and I received the salute apparently with equal ardour.”Applause from natives and Europeans ensued, and the assembly broke up, leaving the question to be decided after one clear day for reflection.

It was not unnatural for the French bishop to contend against recognition of British sovereignty in a land where many Frenchmen desired to hoist their own flag. But Pompallier, a recent visitor, could not cope with the influence of Williams, who had laboured without ceasing for nearly eighteen years, and spoke to old friends. Neither could the authority of Revewah vie with that of Nene, great of yore in the field of battle, and always sage in council.

The real difficulty was a certain amount of misgiving—whether the good faith of the English in treaties could be trusted. The character of the missionaries overcame that difficulty. On the 6th February, the chiefs told Williams they had made up their minds to accept the treaty, and would sign it without further delay, and return to their homes. Hobson accordingly landed. Pompallier asked him if he would announce that Roman Catholic converts would be protected; and Williams, at Hobson's desire, read a statement that all Maoris, those of the Mission, and the Wesleyans, and the Roman Catholics, and those retaining their Maori practices, would be protected. Forty-six leading chiefs¹ signed it (Hobson wrote) “in presence of at least five hundred of inferior degree.”Thus, and on such terms, was the sovereignty of the Queen declared.

“Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, regarding with her Royal favour the native chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and anxious to protect their

– 217 –

just rights and property, and to secure to them the enjoyment of peace and good order, has deemed it necessary (in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty's subjects who have already settled in New Zealand, and the rapid extension of emigration both from Europe and Australia which is still in progress) to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorized to treat with the aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands. Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of civil government, with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary laws and institutions, alike to the native population and to her subjects, has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorize me, William Hobson, a Captain in Her Majesty's Navy, Consul and Lieutenant-Governor over such parts of New Zealand as may be, or hereafter shall be, ceded to Her Majesty, to invite the confederated and independent chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following articles and conditions:-

“1. The chiefs of the confederation of the united tribes of New Zealand, and the separate and independent chiefs who have not become members of the confederation, cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England, absolutely and without reservation, all the rights and powers of sovereignty which the said confederation or independent chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or possess, over their respective territories, as the sole sovereigns thereof.

“2. Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession: But the chiefs of the united tribes and the individual chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate, at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

“3. In consideration thereof, Her Majesty the Queen of

– 218 –

England extends to the natives of New Zealand her Royal protection, and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects.”

This short treaty was duly signed by Hobson, and by the assembled chiefs, and attested as “Done at Waitangi this 6th day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1840;”with the following addition:-“Now, therefore, we, the chiefs of the confederation of the united tribes of New Zealand, being assembled in congress at Victoria in Waitangi, and we, the separate and independent chiefs of New Zealand, claiming authority over the tribes and territories which are specified after our respective names, having been made fully to understand the provisions of the foregoing treaty, accept and enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof, in witness of which we have attached our signatures or marks at the places and the dates respectively specified.”

Of the forty-six who signed the treaty at first, twenty-six had signed the declaration of independence in 1835. In both cases they had been stirred by desire to keep the French from their land and to obtain English protection. In both they had the sympathy of their English resident friends.

Hobson abstained from making presents till the treaty was signed, and then “distributed a few articles of trifling value.”

A fac-simile of the treaty and signatures was published by the New Zealand Government in 1877. The names of the signers are set forth in the Proceedings of the New Zealand Legislative Council of 1869, with those obtained subsequently. On the 13th, at Hokianga, thirty-four signed, although Pakeha Maoris (including Mr. Maning) endeavoured to dissuade them. The Wesleyan missionaries cordially assisted Hobson, and interpreted his “solemn assurance that truth and justice would always characterize”the Government. On the 1st March, Hobson was struck by paralysis. The task of obtaining signatures was subsequently delegated to Lieut. Shortland, to Captain Nias, H.M.S. ‘Herald,’ Major Bunbury, and the Revs. H. Williams, W. Williams, and R. Maunsell.

On the 4th March, at Waitemata, on the 28th April, at Kaitaia, where the great chief Nopera was friendly, and at various dates extending to June, 1840, signatures were obtained

– 219 –

from chiefs of the Thames River, of Kororarika, of Coromandel, Akaroa, Otago, Cloudy Bay, Kapiti (where Rauparaha and Rangihaeata signed), Hawke Bay, Manukau, Kawhia, Waikato Heads, Opotiki, Whakatane, Rangitoto, Wellington, Waikanae, Wanganui, Tauranga, and Turanga. Many hundreds of signatures were obtained and witnessed by officers of the army and navy, by merchants, clerks, and by missionaries. From Kapiti to Wanganui the signatures were witnessed by the Rev. Octavius Hadfield. At Turanga the name of the future Bishop of Waiapu, W. Williams, appeared.

Colonel Wakefield, already jealous of Mr. Williams on account of the visit paid by Hadfield and Williams in 1839 to Port Nicholson, at first resented the introduction of the treaty at the settlement which he had founded, and hoped to govern without interference. Mr. Williams wrote: “Colonel Wakefield, the first time I met him was very insolent, but afterwards retracted what he had said, and withdrew his objection to the treaty being signed. It was accordingly signed by the chiefs, about twenty.”Captain Hobson specially authorized H. Williams “to treat with the principal native chiefs in the southern part of these islands for their adherence to the treaty executed at Waitangi on the 6th February, 1840. I have the honour to enclose a copy of the treaty which I have signed, and to request that you will obtain the signatures thereto of such high chiefs as may be willing to accede to its conditions.”When, at a later date, Hobson felt justified in proclaiming the Queen's authority over the islands, he sent a formal acknowledgment to the Secretary of the Church Mission Local Committee for “the very zealous and effective assistance”rendered to him in his proceedings. He afterwards declared to the Legislative Council (1841) that but for the aid of the missionaries “a British colony would not at this moment be established in New Zealand.”Henry Williams had but to raise his finger and his “mana”would have weighed more with the Maoris than the devices of Colonel Wakefield or the office of Hobson. Busby also received Hobson's warm thanks for his exertions in obtaining the “ready adherence”of the chiefs to the treaty. Sir George Gipps promptly congratulated Hobson on the success of his negotiations. In March, 1840, he sent him a

– 220 –

military force, consisting of a field officer, a captain, two subalterns, four serjeants, and eighty rank and file. He sent him two police magistrates, one of whom, having officiated as Clerk of Petty Sessions, was recommended as conversant with criminal law. Hobson had dispensed with the presence of Captain Nias of the ‘Herald,’ on account of personal differences; but Gipps sent him back because naval co-operation was “essential in the enterprise”at New Zealand, and the Queen's sovereignty was “established only over a small portion of the Northern Island.”

Hobson, infirm in health, on the 1st March, 1840, sustained a shock of paralysis while visiting, in the ‘Herald,’ the Waitemata and Tamaki (represented to him by Henry Williams as fitter for the seat of government than any part of the Bay of Islands, and eventually selected by Hobson as the seat of government at Auckland).

The energetic Gipps, always unsparing of himself, condoled with Hobson, but hoped that “negotiations with the chiefs would not be interrupted”by the illness. “The necessity for an immediate visit to Port Nicholson and the northern parts of the Central Island appears to me most urgent”(2nd April).

On 3rd April he wrote: “Whatever advantages the settlers at Port Nicholson may have gained by being left so long undisturbed in their negotiations with the chiefs for the purchase of land will, I hope, be overcome by the necessity which, sooner or later, they will be under of submitting to such terms as the Government may dictate, but in respect to the extension of the Queen's authority over the Central Island, prompt measures appear to me very urgently required, and indeed (though I leave this point entirely to your own decision) I am disposed to think that the assertion of the Queen's sovereignty by virtue of the right of discovery would perhaps be the most advisable course of proceeding which could be adopted.”He regretted that he had sought in vain for a qualified Colonial Secretary for New Zealand. As to legal advice, he grimly said: “I am informed by the Attorney-General that—–(one of the magistrates previously spoken of) has a very competent knowledge of the law, and though he cannot stand to you in the position of a responsible adviser, I am much disposed to doubt whether a

– 221 –

functionary of that description would not be more likely to embarrass than to aid you.”Unconscious of the master-gaze of Gipps, and his sufficiency of ability and will to control the settlers, Colonel Wakefield meanwhile was not content with making worthless negotiations with Maoris. He endeavoured to set up an independent polity, although he knew that Hobson's commission extended to Port Nicholson. On the 1st May, 1839, the company¹ had solemnly assured Lord Normanby that it “does not, nor has even imagined the possibility of establishing a system of government in New Zealand either independently of the British Crown or in any other way.”Colonel Wakefield acted as if no such assurance had been given. The first settlement, which he called Britannia, he had made at Petone at the entrance of the valley of the Hutt.

The gifts and the authority of E Puni gave him undisturbed possession there. But the place was found unsuitable. The surf made it difficult to land. In March, 1840, it was resolved to transfer the settlement to Te Aro, where stood a native pah, and where the natives protested against intrusion. To disparage them Colonel Wakefield called them slaves, and their pah a slave-pah. He was equally overbearing towards Wesleyan missionaries. Their committee complained (June, 1840) in London that he had taken possession of the site previously selected by their missionaries at Port Nicholson.

The company, grateful to the Duke of Wellington for his support of Gibbon Wakefield's colonizing views when South Australia was founded, called the new settlement ‘Wellington.”

Whether the natives would have resented the intrusion with violence if they had considered Colonel Wakefield the sole representative of the English cannot be told. Henry Williams, when procuring signatures to the treaty of Waitangi, assured them the Governor would send persons to examine their titles and do justice. With this they were pacified. Wakefield had under pretext of the assent of chiefs, formed a provisional government of which he was president, and when he opposed the signing of the treaty, Williams reported officially to Hobson, that owing to the opposition of the company's people, he could not for ten days procure signatures to the treaty, but that it was

– 222 –

then “signed unanimously.”Maugre the assurance given to Lord Normanby, the provisional government at Wellington emulated the insolence of its chief. On the 14th April, 1840, under a presumptuous warrant, one Pearson, master of a trading brig, was brought before a self-styled district magistrate, on a charge of illegal conduct towards his charterer, a resident in Van Diemen's Land. Refusing to recognize the court, Pearson was committed, and was rescued by his friends. An escape-warrant was issued. The company had a newspaper at Wellington. It declared: “We are well pleased that the first person subjected to an assertion of law is of sufficient standing and intelligence to raise the question of our right to act under the sovereign power of the district. Captain Pearson will find that the constituted authorities of Port Nicholson have power to compel obedience.”… (We have not attempted to obtain the sovereignty) “but acting under the various proclamations issued in relation to these islands, have accepted a constitution from the sovereign chiefs, placing a limit to their despotic power.”In promulgating these absurdities the company was abetted by men who were called lawyers. Pearson was astute enough to know that the idol set up by the company was but thinly-veiled lynchlaw, and fled to Hobson, who had recently been enjoined to take “prompt measures”to proclaim the Queen's authority. Prevented by ill-health from going southwards himself, Hobson had sent Major Thomas Bunbury, 80th Regiment, in H.M.S. ‘Herald,’ “to carry out the unexecuted instructions of Government”as to the Queen's sovereignty, and to obtain signatures to the treaty of Waitangi. Bunbury was to assemble chiefs, to explain the treaty, and to offer a “solemn pledge that the most perfect good faith would be kept by Her Majesty's Government, that their property, their rights and privileges, should be most fully preserved.”He was to urge especially, that it was the interest of the chiefs to subscribe, because “of the dangers to which they may be exposed by the residence amongst them of settlers amenable to no laws or tribunals of their own, and the impossibility of Her Majesty's extending to them any effectual protection unless the Queen be acknowledged as the sovereign of their country.”

Bunbury obeyed, and after chiefs had signed the treaty on

– 223 –

the 17th June, 1840, under a salute of twenty-one guns from the ‘Herald,’ the English flag was hoisted at a pah at Cloudy Bay, and possession of the Middle Island, on the ground of “having been ceded in sovereignty,”was taken and “formally proclaimed.”¹ Stewart's Island was taken possession of on the 5th of June, “by right of discovery,”because Bunbury did not there “meet with natives.”

While feverishly waiting for the reports of Bunbury, and of the brothers Williams, Hobson was consoled by the success of Shortland, his Colonial Secretary, at Kaitaia, where many chiefs signed the treaty in April, under the advice of Nopera Panakareao, a great Rarawa chief, whom Hobson described as a “superior person, full of intelligence, of a most independent and liberal spirit, and possessing unbounded influence in the district.”

Nopera said: “Hearken, all of you, Pakeha and Maori. My desire is that we should be all of one heart. Speak your words openly. Speak as you mean to act. Do not say one thing and mean another. I am at your head. I wish you all to accept the Governor. We are saved by this… What wrong has the Governor done? The shadow of the land goes to the Queen, but the substance remains with us. We will go to the Governor and obtain payment for our lands as before… Do not, like the chiefs at Hokianga, wish to kill the Governor. Live peaceably with the Pakeha. We have now a helmsman. Formerly one said, ‘Let me steer,’ and we never went straight.… What man of sense would believe that the Governor would take our possessions and only pay to us half their value? If you have anything else to say, say it; but if not, finish, and let all of you say ‘yes, yes.’ “

There was some ground for the reference to men at Hokianga. Hobson, in the same despatch² which reported Panakareao's kindly aid, declared that rumours of a conspiracy against the

– 224 –

Government were “not without foundation. I know the principal persons implicated, and I will have them closely watched. If there is really any truth in the matter it may be ascribed to the mischievous stories that have been circulated by low abandoned Europeans, who try to persuade the natives that we only wait until we are strong enough to take possession of all the land and sell it irrespective of native claims. I have issued circulars to the chiefs, and have taken other measures which I trust will disabuse their minds.”

When it is borne in mind that there was a considerable population of low Europeans both at Hokianga and at Kororarika, the significance of Nopera's words and the critical position of Hobson will be understood. Nevertheless, though stricken with sore disease, and endowed with little ability, a resolution to do his duty and the moral strength of the strongminded Gipps supported him. He had heard of the signing of the treaty at Wellington and other portions of the Northern Island, and waited only for Bunbury's report to assert the Queen's general sovereignty. But Gipps had authorized a Proclamation of Sovereignty over the Middle Island, on the plea of discovery, if necessary. Within an hour of hearing of President Wakefield, his council and his magistrates, Hobson proclaimed, on the 21st May, 1840, the Queen's sovereignty over the Northern Island on the ground of cession by “the chiefs of the confederation of the united tribes, and the separate and independent chiefs.”By a separate Proclamation on the same day he asserted the sovereign rights of the Queen over all the Islands of New Zealand, averring that he had “it in command”so to do. He explained to the Secretary of State that in thus acting he “yielded to the emergency of the case arising out of the events at Port Nicholson, and was supported by the advice of Sir George Gipps, previously given. According to my opinion, unaided by legal advice, the proceedings of the Association at Port Nicholson amount to high treason. They have usurped the power of Her Majesty in establishing a constitution, and in appointing magistrates.”They had levied taxes, and “unjust as well as illegal magisterial authority”had been exercised.

Hobson would not “take immediate cognizance of those acts,”

– 225 –

but sent Shortland to publish the Proclamations in Wellington, “and at once to displace all persons holding office under the authority of the usurped government,”and to “restore to all persons the possession of property of which they were in possession when the emigrants arrived, and from which they had been forcibly ejected by persons calling themselves magistrates.”He gave Shortland a Proclamation, dated 23rd May, at Russell,¹ Bay of Islands. It declared the Association at Port Nicholson illegal and usurping, commanded all persons to withdraw from it, and called upon all persons there or elsewhere under his government, upon their allegiance to submit to and to aid “the proper authorities in New Zealand.”

The palsied Governor was able to report that Shortland had been despatched “without one hour's delay,”with thirty soldiers. Shortland arrived at Port Nicholson on the 2nd June, and sent the Proclamations on shore with a letter announcing that he would land and read them on the following day. The firmness of Sir George Gipps was by this time known and regarded. Dr. Evans, with others, averred that the company's conduct had been misrepresented; that the Council had only been formed provisionally until Hobson could act, and that the settlers were “highly delighted”at Shortland's arrival. He accepted their overtures on condition that “The Council vanished and that the flags be hauled down.”His terms were acceded to; his Proclamations were read and responded to with cheers and a European salute by the Europeans, and a war-dance and vollies of musketry by large numbers of Maoris. Mr. E. J. Wakefield in his ‘Adventures in New Zealand’ was unable to refrain from revealing that many of the company's people acknowledged the authority of the Government with ill-grace, and sneered at Shortland. Nevertheless (1st July) they addressed Hobson with thankfulness, told him that they had heard with “surprise and indignation”the false reports circulated against them, and said

– 226 –

that being “assured that sooner or later”Wellington must be the seat of government, they had, in planning their town, “set apart the most valuable sections of land for the convenience of the public offices and for the personal accommodation”of Hobson. Colonel Wakefield carried the address to the Bay of Islands and was graciously received and thanked for it. He had good reason for submitting to British authority. Without it he could not hope to obtain a title to the site of Wellington, and it was clear that Gipps would confer no title wrongfully.

While Shortland was on the spot there was (26th August) a disturbance between armed settlers and the Maoris. He forth-with issued a notice forbidding all persons to assemble with arms, and he entered into an agreement with the Maoris, whom he described as unarmed and well-behaved, and who assigned their interests to the Crown to be afterwards dealt with. He warned Wakefield that he would permit no person to take possession until the case had been investigated. Wakefield accepted his intervention thankfully. Shortland reported that the Te Aro natives stoutly maintained that they had not sold their land, and that when he asked E Puni whether he had professed to sell it in September, 1839, the chief replied, “Yes: how could I help it when so many muskets and blankets were put before me?”

On the whole it was becoming oppressively plain that Wakefield's vaunted deeds of conveyance were almost worthless, and that while Sir George Gipps exercised authority it would be difficult to impose upon them a value to which they were not entitled. Hobson transmitted to England a report from Shortland that the chiefs “did not recognize the titles”set up at their head-quarters by the company.

Confident in the potency of Lord Durham and the great names of the directors of the company, Colonel Wakefield applied to England, where it was hoped that the political exigencies of a tottering Ministry might make Lord John Russell more pliable than the man greater than he who ruled in Sydney. One method resorted to was to vituperate Hobson. Having inspected Waitemata in February, 1840, and obtained reports as to its position; its means of communication with the sea, eastward and westward respectively, through the

– 227 –

Manukau harbour, and the Hauraki Gulf; its soil, and other advantages; Hobson made arrangements to buy a site for his capital. The church missionaries consented to forego their claims to the services of one of their body, Mr. George Clarke (catechist), in order that he might act as Chief Protector of the Aborigines;¹ and he was deputed to purchase the land required. In September, 1840, the British flag was hoisted at the new settlement, which Hobson called Auckland. He had already purchased 30,000 acres there, and was in treaty for more. He removed the Government establishments thither early in 1841. In June, 1842, the Secretary of State announced that Her Majesty had approved Hobson's selection. The company never forgot nor forgave his failure to appreciate the claim of Wellington to be the seat of government. Hobson's statement, that the title of the company at Port Nicholson was disputed by the natives, Mr. Somes had the audacity to declare untrue. “We have not heard of a single instance, though accounts have reached us of strenuous efforts made by one of the church missionaries to cause such disputes.”

It will be remembered that in December, 1839, Henry Williams attempted to lock up in trust for the natives the land from Rangitiki to Patea, after Colonel Wakefield had failed to enter the Wanganui river to secure the land for the company in his usual manner; and that he made a purchase of about fifty acres at Port Nicholson. In August, 1840, a Wanganui chief, Te Anaua, showed to E. J. Wakefield a notice of the Wanganui trust, in Williams' handwriting. Wakefield endorsed the document as an “arrant falsehood,”and returned it to the chief: remarking (in his book) that he “could not see a single excuse for Williams' conduct, which must have been intended to prevent the completion of a bargain which we had commenced at Kapiti a month before his arrival.”Shortly after endorsing the notice, although Hobson had long assumed the government, and Gipps' proclamations had deprived such negotiations of even the pretence of validity, young Wakefield procured goods with which to re-enact his uncle's dealings. Discontented chiefs (he said) went to the ship in canoes “and exclaimed against the smallness of their share… They wanted

– 228 –

to return the goods to me, but I steadily refused, and told them that the bargain was concluded, and that they must now arrange the division in their own way… Te Anaua appeared to have been wounded, having a bandage round his head.”

Such were the transactions which the company called upon the majesty of England to sanction.

Young Wakefield sent a narrative to England, and the company told Lord John Russell that they could entirely rely upon his veracity. They quoted only a part of the account; but the wildness of their claim may be seen at a glance. It included the coast from Manawatu to Patea, and extended inland to Tongariro, where in those days Te Heu Heu would speedily have quenched the company's claims if they had been asserted. The purchase made by Williams at Port Nicholson was denounced by Colonel Wakefield to the company in terms which recoiled upon his own head in the estimation of all who knew the two men. He railed at “his selfish views, his hypocrisy, and unblushing rapaciousness.”William Williams had sent a petition to the Queen against purchases pretended to have been made at Hawke Bay by a private trader. The company confounded one Williams with the other in mixed abuse. The purchase at Wellington was made by Henry Williams from Reihana, who was the first missionary there, and who was about to migrate to Taranaki. Reihana had refused to join in the presumed sale to Wakefield by E Puni and Warepori. Williams bought the land for the Church Missionary Society. The local committee at the Bay of Islands declined to take it, lest it should bring them into collision with the company. It remained meanwhile free for occupation by Reihana. When H. Williams went to Wellington in April, 1840, to procure signatures to the treaty of Waitangi, at Hobson's request, and heard from Dr. Evans that reserves for the natives were a part of the company's plans, he told him that under such circumstances he did not desire to retain the land bought from Reihana. At one interview Colonel Wakefield used such coarse language that Williams declined to enter upon the subject; and, meeting Dr. Evans afterwards, was informed that he as a lawyer was retained to resist Reihana's claims on the ground that he was a slave. Williams replied that he was well

– 229 –

acquainted with Maori usage, and that Reihana's claim was valid. Another person was sent to ask Williams, but in vain, if he would abandon his claim on receipt of a sum of money. The hand of Gipps was at that time felt, and Wakefield thought fit to make an ample apology, and offered to make it public. Williams was content, and told Wakefield that the reserves for natives having been made, he would present the land to the company, retaining one acre for Reihana and another for himself, as an acknowledgment of title. Reihana afterwards lived upon his land. The acre kept by Williams was sold for Church purposes, and the proceeds formed part of the endowment fund of Trinity Church, Pakaraka, near the Bay of Islands. The sad truth must be told that the reserves for natives which formed the consideration for which Williams handed over to the company about fifty acres in the town of Wellington were not respected. The Government, in later times, sold them on the plea that they were not legally secured, and that having “done so much for the natives,”it was reasonable that it should be reimbursed “from the lands originally set apart for reserves for the benefit of the natives.”If these words were not to be found in a State document (1848), strangers to New Zealand might think they were intended for satire.

As the petition of the Rev. William Williams has been referred to, it is proper to advert to his proceedings. With his family he had taken up his abode at Poverty Bay in January, 1840. In February he petitioned the Queen to prevent the inhumanity and injustice which traders were endeavouring to inflict by pretended purchases of Maori lands. In May, 1840, having procured signatures of chiefs to the Waitangi treaty, he reported for Hobson's information further details with regard to the matter of his petition. He sent an account of “a most nefarious transaction which took place in January last, being an attempt on the part of Captain Rhodes, of the barque ‘Eleanor,’ from Sydney, to dupe the natives out of a tract of land extending from Port Nicholson to the north side of Ahuriri in Hawke Bay, and again from the north bank of the river Wairoa to the north of Table Cape.”For one hundred and sixty miles of coast, with undefined limits in the interior, Rhodes pretended to have procured a title by distributing property valued at £160.

– 230 –

Williams hoped that the transaction would be set aside,¹ and was prepared to prove that much of the land was claimed under signatures of Maoris who had no interest in it; that those who signed the deed did not know its contents; that some of those who had signed, on learning the nature of the deed, refused to receive payment; that the so-called purchase was made on board of the ‘Eleanor;’ and that “the most numerous body of the proprietors were not consulted, and expressed their most decided disapprobation.”The whole transaction may be taken as a specimen of the bargains by which, in emulation of the New Zealand Company, speculators and agents from Sydney grasped at the lands of the Maori. All these vicious transactions Gipps felt it his duty to check. On the 6th May, 1840, he told Hobson that he had settled the terms of a bill for regulating titles to land in New Zealand. The first clause would “declare all purchases or pretended purchases from the natives to be null and void.”He narrated fully the contemplated provisions, which were, in the main, eventually comprised in the Act 4 Viet. No. 7, passed on the 4th August, 1840, in Sydney. Its preamble may best describe it:

“Whereas in various parts of the Islands of New Zealand comprehended within the limits of the territory and government of New South Wales, tracts or portions of land are claimed to be held by various individuals by virtue of purchases or pretended purchases, gifts or pretended gifts, conveyances or pretended conveyances, or other titles, mediately or immediately from the chiefs or other individuals of the aboriginal tribes inhabiting the same; and whereas no such individual or individuals can acquire a legal title to, or permanent interest in, any such tracts or portions of land by virtue of any gift, purchase, or conveyance, by or from the chiefs or other individuals of such aboriginal tribes as aforesaid, and whereas Her Majesty hath by instructions under the hand of one of her principal Secretaries of State”(14th August, 1839), “declared her pleasure

– 231 –

not to recognize any titles to land in New Zealand which do not proceed from, or are not, or shall not be, allowed by Her Majesty; and whereas it is expedient and proper to put beyond doubt the invalidity of all titles to land within the said Islands of New Zealand, founded upon such purchases or pretended purchases, gifts or pretended gifts, conveyances or pretended conveyances, or other titles from the said uncivilized tribes or aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand: Be it therefore declared and enacted by His Excellency the Governor of New South Wales, with the advice of the Legislative Council of the said Colony, That all titles to land in New Zealand which are not, or may not hereafter be allowed by Her Majesty, are and shall be absolutely void.”By eleven other clauses the Governor was empowered to appoint Commissioners who were to be guided by the real justice and good conscience of the case; no grant was to exceed two thousand five hundred and sixty acres unless authorized by the Governor in Council; no bays, headlands, islands, &c., which might be required by the public, were to be included, nor sites for towns or villages, or sites required for public utility; and it was not to be obligatory on the Governor to make a grant even when recommended by the Commissioners.

The passage of the bill was vehemently opposed by Busby the late Resident and other claimants. Amongst them was no less a man than William Charles Wentworth, whose legal and constitutional knowledge was highly regarded; but from a contest with whom Gipps did not shrink.

Early in 1840 seven Maori chiefs were in Sydney, and they were invited to sign at Government House a declaration of their willingness to accept the Queen as their sovereign. They attended and heard the necessary document read; each of them received ten sovereigns, and they were to return to the Governor in two days to sign the declaration. They did not return. To a message sent to them, one of their English hosts replied that they had been advised to sign no treaty which did not contain full security for the possession by the purchasers of all lands acquired from the natives. It transpired that William C. Wentworth had so advised. He himself claimed one hundred thousand acres in the Northern, and twenty millions of acres in the Middle Island. The seven chiefs who had not kept their

– 232 –

appointment at Government House were the nominal sellers. They were to receive two hundred pounds a-year for life.

Wentworth and others prayed to be heard against the bill. Mr. Busby, the late resident, was a claimant for fifty thousand acres and for the site of a township at the Bay of Islands.

Two days were spent in hearing the petitioners at the Legislative Council. Sir George Gipps replied to their arguments, forcibly devoting himself to those of Wentworth. He cited Kent, Story, and Marshall, to show that the English doctrine of acquisition of territory by the Crown was received as law in the United States. He quoted opinions given in England in 1836 to the effect that Batman and his associates were incompetent to acquire territory, except through the Crown, at Port Phillip. He adduced the abortive attempt of the New Zealand Company to form a legal community at Port Nicholson without sanction of the Crown. He could not satisfactorily deal with the point taken by Wentworth that the English Government had recognized the sovereignty and independence of New Zealand; but when a Government changes its opinions on such a point no logical defence can be made for it. His speech is enshrined in the Parliamentary Papers of the House of Commons (1841, first session), with a congratulatory despatch upon it from Lord John Russell. Mr. Wentworth's has not been so preserved, but the heads of it are in the proceedings of the Legislative Council of New South Wales. Gipps passed his measure. Wentworth threw up his commission as a magistrate, and Gipps withdrew a recommendation he had made in 1839, that Wentworth should be offered a seat in the Legislative Council. Thenceforth there was war to the knife between the two.

The English Government meanwhile having determined to make New Zealand a separate colony, Gipps was informed that his Act would be consequently disallowed, with a view to legislation in New Zealand, and that a Commissioner would be sent from England to investigate the claims to land. Hobson re-enacted the measure, 9th June, 1841, with few changes; but the ingenuity of speculators may be read in one of them. The new preamble proscribed “leases or pretended leases, agreements, or other titles, either mediately or

– 233 –

immediately, from the chiefs or other individuals or individual of the aboriginal tribes.”(On the 6th March, 1841, Gipps himself had urged Hobson to “declare that Her Majesty's Government will not suffer so manifest an invasion of the Act of Council as the practice of taking leases from the natives would, if recognized, establish.”) All transactions “which are not or may not hereafter be allowed by Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, are and the same shall be absolutely null and void.”

Lest it should be thought that the British Government failed in any manner to approve of the action of Gipps and of Hobson in making the treaty of Waitangi and in dealing with Maori lands, it will be proper to quote some State papers. Lord Normanby's instructions have been cited already. Lord John Russell wrote to Gipps (17th July, 1840): “Her Majesty's Government entirely approve of the measures which you adopted, and the manner in which they were carried into effect by Captain Hobson.”When Royal instructions were sent to Hobson as Governor they declared the Queen's will that he should”especially take care”to protect the natives “in their persons, and in the free enjoyment of their possessions, and that you do by all lawful means prevent and restrain all violence and injustice which may in any manner be practised or attempted against them.”

Adverting to these instructions, Lord John Russell wrote (28 Jan., 1841): “Her Majesty in the royal instructions under the sign manual has distinctly established the general principle that the territorial rights of the natives as owners of the soil must be recognized and respected.”To make the assurance greater he added that lands pointed out by the Protector “as essential to the well-being of the natives should be regarded as inalienable even in favour of the local government.”

It has been mentioned that a shoal of speculators gathered like harpies on the coast of New Zealand to emulate the career of the company. Soon after Hobson's arrival he wrote: “The passion for land-jobbing now pervades every class, and all other considerations appear to be absorbed in that one object. Tracts of country in some cases of five hundred square miles are claimed by single individuals.… The Proclamation issued by

– 234 –

your lordship's order has had the effect of stopping this traffic, but extensive mischief has been done before its promulgation.… I greatly fear that the conflicting claims will create a violent ferment through every class of society both native and European.”He was “not yet sufficiently informed of all the intricacies of the question”of native land titles, but would “sift it”and report to the Secretary of State and impress his views on the Land Commissioners. Hobson had reason to be startled at the audacity of the claims put forward. Irrespectively of the New Zealand Company's fraudulent claims, millions of acres in the North Island were alleged to have been purchased. In the Middle Island more acres were asserted to have been bought than it contained. Setting aside Wentworth's claim, more than nineteen millions of acres were demanded. Many claimed the same land. One man, residing at Sydney, claimed the whole of Stewart Island, for an alleged payment of one hundred pounds. In some instances the claimants were content to claim without alleging any precise payment. Their reticence could hardly have arisen from shame, for one man claimed five and a half millions of acres at Akaroa for an alleged payment of sixty pounds. He also was a Sydney resident. It is almost needless to say that many claims overlapped one another. Two men of the same surname claimed several millions of acres at Bank's Peninsula, the Bluff, the Molyneux, and other points on the coast, but never appeared to support their claims before the Commissioner. Greedy as were the Maoris for the arms on which existence depended, the lust for land, bought with a few muskets and iron weapons, made the white man equally avaricious, and it was well that the vigorous hand of Governor Gipps was near to stay the plague which would have spread over the land if vicious titles had been even provisionally acknowledged, and had led to an armed combination of the tribes to resist extortion. With complicated tribal titles, over which the sovereignty or ‘mana’ of chiefs was exercised in a manner uncomprehended by the land-jobbers, it was as certain as any mathematical definition that the bargains asserted by the European would never be acknowledged by the Maori, but that he would die to resist them. By limiting every claim, and by appointing

– 235 –

Commissioners to examine, Sir George Gipps would, but for the foolish interposition of Lord John Russell, have adjusted difficulties on a reasonable basis. He saw the risk of quarrel between the two races. Bargains perverted, deeds misrepresented or misunderstood, could lead to no other result. Firearms tempted the eyes, large promises plied the ears of the Maori. The lust of war meanwhile was in his own mind. The teeth of the serpent were everywhere sown: the children of the soil were to wage fratricidal war, and too late to discover that their own disunion was to subject them to the yoke of the invader.

But the settlers at Port Nicholson were appalled at the prospect of a strict examination of their titles, and a reasonable limitation of their claims. Mr. E. J. Wakefield (in the book already quoted) confessed that the “panic which seized the colonists”could hardly be conceived.

Colonel Wakefield was absent when the disastrous tidings arrived. He had gone to pacify Captain Hobson, and to ask him to move the seat of government to Port Nicholson. “Various were the projects suggested by the panic-struck adventurers, each according to his disposition.”Some hoped that Hobson might be made independent of Gipps. Some wished at once to return to England. Some would go to Chili. Some would remain to fight the battle. Colonel Wakefield's return reassured them. Captain Hobson had been friendly, but had declined to transfer the seat of government to Cook's Straits. At a public meeting thanks to the Lieutenant-Governor were voted; and Dr. Evans, Mr. Hanson, and Mr. Moreing were sent as a deputation to Sir George Gipps. Dr. G. S. Evans was a barrister, appointed as umpire to the settlement under the agreement which had been condemned as unlawful. If his honesty in adhering to a principle had been equal to his intelligence he might have made his mark in any colony. Mr. R. D. Hanson, a solicitor, had been sent from England as agent for the company for purchase of lands. His legal knowledge had not saved him from committing the blunder of going to the Chatham Islands and believing that he had secured them by purchase. He was engaged at Kawhia when the report of Sir George Gipps' proceedings arrested his own.

– 236 –

The deputation did not succeed in inducing Sir George Gipps to recognize the claims of the company. But he gratified them by acknowledging individual claims of settlers, leaving to the Government the task of examining the accounts between the settlers and the company. He reserved the rights of the natives and of purchasers from them, as against the company, for the decision of the Commissioners under the Land Claims Act. He determined that the one hundred and ten thousand acres asked by the company must be taken in one continuous block, and that private claimants should be compensated by the company or by the body of the settlers, whom he advised to apply for a charter of incorporation for municipal purposes, inasmuch as the Government (having received no funds from sale of land at the spot) would erect no buildings except for judicial and fiscal needs. The arrangement was to be subject to approval by the British Government. Any recognition seemed better than none. The panic subsided; and at a public meeting on the 15th December, 1840, the residents voted unanimous and cordial thanks to Sir George Gipps for his “justice and liberality.”The settlers were content with the prospect of individual crown grants, and Colonel Wakefield thought it politic in a letter (26th February, 1841) to England to laud Sir George Gipps' decision. At the same time Colonel Wakefield and the Directory in London brought counteracting influences to bear upon the Colonial Office, and the beneficial results of the decision were to be thwarted by the interference of Lord John Russell.

There was one act for which Hobson received unqualified praise from Gipps and all colonists. One Langlois, the master of a French whaler, had, in 1838, arranged with certain chiefs for the purchase of “all Bank's Peninsula, with the exception of the Bay of Hikuraki and Oihoa.”The instalment to be paid at once was one hundred and fifty francs, or their value in old clothes. Langlois was to pay afterwards in guns, sabres, gunpowder, clothes, wine, a tambour, and other articles creditable to his ingenuity if useless to the Maoris. He returned in August, 1840, in the ‘Comte de Paris’ (whaler), with fifty-seven settlers, leaving others to follow. His wares were valued at more than £200, and then only was a formal document signed

– 237 –

by a few Maoris. But in January, 1840, Gipps had proclaimed the invalidity of such transactions; Hobson had asserted the Queen's sovereignty; and many Maoris at Akaroa impugned Langlois' presumed purchase. Tuhaiwaki, the principal chief, laughed it to scorn.

There was another obstacle. When Langlois reached Akaroa on the 16th August, 1840, he found the English flag flying, and a Court of Petty Sessions established—though it had nothing to do. Hobson had sent the flag under singular circumstances. Although he had, under Gipps' advice, proclaimed the Queen's sovereignty in May, 1840, he heard rumours which were rife about French occupation. The French frigate ‘L'Aube’ was at the Bay of Islands. Hobson met her officers with cordiality. H.M.S. ‘Britomart’ was in the harbour, and on the 21st July Captain Stanley¹ received a hasty letter from Hobson. It was “of the utmost importance that the authority of Her Majesty should be most unequivocally exercised throughout the remote parts of the colony, and particularly in the Middle and Southern Islands, where I understand foreign influence and even interference is to be apprehended.… There are various rumours current that Captain Lavaud, of the French corvette ‘L'Aube,’ now at anchor in this port, is employed in the furtherance of designs such as I have before mentioned. From some observations which fell from him I observed that it was his intention to proceed to the South Islands, being under an impression that the land at Akaroa and Bank's Peninsula is the property of a French subject. These circumstances… excite in my mind a strong presumption that he is charged with some mission in that quarter incompatible with the sovereign rights of Her Majesty, which… it will be your study by every means to frustrate. If my suspicions prove correct, the ‘L'Aube’ will no doubt proceed to Akaroa and Bank's Peninsula, for which place I have earnestly to request that you will depart with the utmost expedition, as it will be a point of the utmost consideration that on his arrival at that port he may find you in occupation, and that it will be out of his power to dislodge you without committing some act of hostility.”If Captain Lavaud should anticipate Stanley either at Akaroa or elsewhere Stanley was

– 238 –

to remonstrate, and “impress upon him that such a proceeding must be considered as an act of decided hostile invasion.”

Hobson gave Stanley a copy of Major Bunbury's certificate that the natives had formally ceded the sovereignty of the Southern Islands when they signed the treaty of Waitangi, and called his attention to the Proclamation of sovereignty on the 21st May. “On the subject of this communication I have to request the most inviolable secrecy from all except your superior officers, to whom it may be necessary to report your proceedings. The ostensible purpose of your cruise may appear to be the conveyance of two magistrates to Port Nicholson… the real object… is to defeat the movements of any foreign ship of war that may be engaged in establishing a settlement on any part of the coast of New Zealand.”

Captain Lavaud was innocent of the intentions suspected, or knew how to disarm suspicion, for the gallant Hobson, on the 23rd July, wrote to Stanley that further communication with Lavaud induced him to believe that the “French force in these seas have no similar or concealed object in view. It will, however, be out duty to watch their proceedings, and to interrupt any of their measures that may be deemed inimical to the rights or privileges of Her Majesty. It has been reported that some French emigrants are on their way from Europe to settle in some part of these islands. Should that prove true I particularly request that you will visit the place of their disembarkation and land one of the magistrates, who will act under the instructions I have now the honour to enclose to meet that contingency.”The magistrates were to hold a court on shore, and, “should no case be brought under consideration, to adjourn from day to day,”carefully recording and reporting to Hobson their proceedings. Baron de Thierry,¹ in his autobiograpy, reveals

– 239 –

the fact that some Frenchmen thought it Lavaud's duty to anticipate the ‘Britomart.’ He declares that he warned Lavaud in these words: “A trick is going to be played you. You will find the British flag flying at Akaroa when you arrive there.… Captain Stanley will get the start of you.”De Thierry called Akaroa a “French station,”and when he heard that Lavaud found the British flag hoisted there wrote: “It is unquestionably true that the French lost the port of Akaroa.”

The ‘Britomart’ encountered stormy weather. A stern-boat was washed away, another boat was destroyed; but, in spite of all obstacles, Stanley brought his vessel to anchor at Akaroa on the 10th August. Captain Lavaud, arriving later, was detained two or three days off the point. When, on the 15th, the ill-named L'Aube anchored, the sun had for four days been shining on the English flag on shore.¹

The French immigrants, under Langlois in the ‘Comte de Paris,’ had not arrived. On the following day they appeared. Lavaud agreed that his countrymen should land in an unoccupied part of the bay, and that until fresh instructions should be obtained from the English and French Governments, the Frenchmen should only build shelter-houses and make gardens.

– 240 –

The English commander, finding that the French whaler had “six long twenty-four pounders”on board, protested against their being landed with the French settlers. Captain Lavaud professed surprise at the fact that the guns had been sent out, and assured Captain Stanley that they should not be landed. Politeness reigned at the peninsula. The English resident magistrate became a guest on board of the French frigate until he could provide himself with shelter on shore. Captain Stanley sailed away and left the French to their own devices.

Mr. Robinson the magistrate became a diplomatist. He agreed to assist in maintaining the authority of the French over their people “until some definite arrangements could be made between the respective Governments respecting the various conflicting claims to the lands in Bank's Peninsula,”and Lavaud undertook to help Robinson in maintaining order, but did not wish the English flag to be hoisted over his countrymen in the meantime. This arrangement was sanctioned by Hobson and was approved in England.¹ The final decision as to the manner in which the French Company were required to prove their claims at Akaroa was communicated by Lord Stanley (20th August, 1842). They were to be dealt with “on the same principle as if they had been a British Company,”and were invited “as a preliminary step to prove the extent of their claims, with an intimation that the claims when, proved to be just would be allowed in the Northern Island, and that no difficulties would be thrown in the way of their naturalization.”

Subsequent investigation of the titles of the French settlers elicited proof that the French Government had more to do with Langlois' expedition than Captain Lavaud knew or admitted. Lavaud (to Hobson in 1841) disclaimed any national intrusion

– 241 –

on the part of his Government, but “supported the claims of his countrymen as the only bonâ fide purchasers from natives.”¹

Among the documents produced by the French Company in 1844, in support of their claims for compensation, was a compact between the Nanto-Bordelaise Company (to whom Langlois sold) and a Commission named on behalf of the French Government by Admiral Duperre, the Minister of Marine. The Commission was counter-signed by the Prime Minister Marshal Soult, and the Minister of Commerce, and was approved by the King of the French. It was notorious that Hobson was on his way to New Zealand, when, on the 11th December, 1839, a remarkable agreement between the French Company and the Commission was signed. It showed that the vessel, nominally Langlois', the ‘Comte de Paris,’ was put at the disposition of the Company “par le département de la Marine tout armée et approvisionée de rechanges pour un an… fonder et a occuper les premiers établissemens qui y (New Zealand) seront créés par la compagnie après qu'elle aura acquis les terrains sur lesquels elle s'établira.”At least, one vessel of war was to be always on the station to protect, and “pour la formation des établissemens.”For these favours the company “livrera a l'Etat le quart des terrains qu'elle pourra acquérir,”as well as sites for forts and public uses.

By the light of these documents² one can understand why Langlois so hastily framed his deeds to convey millions of acres extending from the east to the west coast. One sees also that the bad faith displayed by Louis Philippe in continental affairs could conspire with so mean an instrument as Langlois, to delude the Maoris and deceive the English Government.³

– 242 –

On the 20th February, 1840, another document was signed by the parties to the agreement of the 11th December. They constituted themselves “La Compagnie Française de la Nouvelle Zelande,”for the purpose of acquiring and colonizing lands there and prosecuting whale fishing in the adjacent seas. The name of Admiral du Petit Thouars appears among them as one of the links connecting the Government with the fortunes and schemes of this singular company. Their further operations were arrested in France when the Proclamation of the Queen's sovereignty by virtue of the treaty of Waitangi became known: but the French agent at Akaroa informed Governor Hobson in 1841 that “five hundred persons were on the point of embarkation, and were only prevented from proceeding to the colony”by her Majesty's Proclamation.

On the whole it is almost demonstrable that, if Gipps had not forced upon the honourable but palsied Hobson the prompt assertion of sovereignty in the Southern Islands, the enterprise of Langlois, with the aid of the French Ministry, might have had a different result; and, to use the expression of De Thierry, the French might not have “lost the port of Akaroa.”Gipps approved Hobson's proceedings, and commended to the Secretary of State the “firmness and discretion”with which Hobson had acted. The fate of the French settlement may be briefly told. The project, nipped in the bud by the dashing Stanley, withered into oblivion under slow official blight. The English Ambassador in Paris was moved to communicate with Lord Aberdeen (Foreign Secretary) in July, 1842. At that time Hobson wished to assign to the French settlers fifty thousand acres at Kaitaia in the “extreme northern district.”Lord Aberdeen (July, 1842), apprised the French Government of that fact, and added, that Her Majesty's Government “proposed to deal with the company connected with the French settlers on the same principle as if they had been a British Company, and to invite them as a preliminary step to prove their claims, which when proved to be just will be allowed in the Northern Island—no difficulties being thrown in the way of their naturalization.”When this despatch was laid before the Land Claim Commissioners,

– 243 –

Colonel Godfrey and Major Richmond, they saw at once that the principles on which British claims were decided would bar the French from compensation, inasmuch as the pretended bargains were made long after Sir G. Gipps' Proclamation forbidding and making null the acquisition of land after the 14th January, 1840. Except as to a trifling area the French deeds were dated in August, 1840.

Calling attention to these facts the Commissioners merely reported the evidence taken. Sending their report to England, the acting Governor (Shortland) remarked that Akaroa was one of the most important harbours and stations in New Zealand.

At that time (1844), one Monsieur Maillieres was pressing the claims of the French Company upon the Colonial Office. His powers were, in 1845, supplemented by a power of attorney from Langlois, the original adventurer. The asserted expenditure was £36,000. The Land and Emigration Commissioners, at Lord Stanley's request, investigated the claims, and were satisfied that £11,685 had been expended by the company. In consideration of the silly rule established by Lord John Russell in dealing with Wakefield's New Zealand Company,—viz. awarding “four acres for every pound sterling”(expended by the adventurers)—Lord Stanley consented, although the claims put before Colonel Godfrey¹ at Akaroa, were manifestly worthless, to authorize a confirmatory grant limited to thirty thousand acres,² and subject to the usual inquiry as to the validity of the contract with the

– 244 –

natives. Maillieres was profuse in thankfulness. Not cognizant, perhaps, of the proofs locally required as to boundaries, and tribal consent, he wrote to Under-Secretary Hope: “J'ose espérer… que les délégués de l'autorité souveraine seront complètement favourable a mes commettans dans la meilleure désignation des trente mille acres que le Gouvernement de S. M. Brit. a été désireux de nous concéder… qu'enfin de fausses interpretations et d'étroites vues n'entraveront pas la prompte et finale réalisation des volontés nobles, franches, et généreuses que le Gouvernement de S. M. la Reine a bien voulu manifester à la Compagnie Nanto-Bordelaise. J'emporte cette pensée consolante, monsieur, et je bénis ceux qui comme vous me l'ont fait concevoir.”When Lord Stanley's instructions reached New Zealand, Beligny, the agent for the French Company, not having anticipated so favourable a result, was not to be found. Delays intervened. In May, 1847, the French Company treated with the New Zealand Company for sale of their claim, but considered they were entitled to larger credit for expenditure than had been allowed in 1845. They asked for two hundred and sixty thousand acres. Langlois opposed the sale to the English Company. Earl Grey, as Colonial Secretary, declined to alter Lord Stanley's decision, and in November, 1846, authorized the Governor to mark out the thirty thousand acres without aid from Beligny if he should be absent or unable to act.

Finally (4th July, 1849), before the selection was made, the official liquidateur of the French Company, M. Raillard, conveyed their entire property and interests in New Zealand to the New Zealand Company for the sum of £4,500. The sale was a relief to the New Zealand Government, which was at the time negotiating for the “Port Cooper and Port Levy blocks”with the Maoris, and the undetermined French claim was inconvenient. Among the arguments used by Tikao—in asking remuneration—was that he risked “the anger of the French Government by acknowledging the supremacy of the English.”It is fair to add that Tikao insisted on and obtained a guarantee that the grave of a child at Pigeon Bay should be undisturbed until there be formed a cemetery, to which, unless it might comprise the grave, the remains were to be removed.

– 245 –

When the French settlers, chiefly carpenters, gardeners, stonemasons, and labourers, were left at Akaroa they planted orchards to remind them of “la belle France,”but they made no homes. M. Beligny (a botanist and mineralogist) remained to superintend the settlement, but it did not prosper.

Eventually most of the settlers were removed to the French Marquesas. Over those Frenchmen who remained at Akaroa their Government long kept up surveillance. The senior French naval officer on the station acted as Commissaire du Roi. A farm and garden were at his disposal. A servant handed the keys of his dwelling to each new Commissaire on his arrival.

While the position of the French at Akaroa was in suspense, Lord Stanley watched narrowly the movements of their countrymen. In 1842, a frigate, ‘La Reine Blanche,’ touched at Brazil with three hundred troops on board, supposed to be destined for New Zealand. Two corvettes joined her. The Ambassador at Paris was put in motion, and M. Guizot assured him that no expedition to New Zealand was contemplated. “All that we desire is that the rights and properties of the French residing there should be acknowledged and respected by the British authorities.”It was true that the corvettes had sailed to relieve the officer on the French station there. Two months afterwards the Ambassador was again assured by the Minister of Marine (on the honour of the head of the “division des Colonies”), “que la frégate ‘La Reine Blanche’ n'a point sa destination à la Nouvelle Zelande; non plus que le but de coloniser dans la groupe de la Tasmanie… Seulement il a reçu l'ordre de venir partout et de toute manière dans ses voyages au secours des Français, et de donner au gouvernement des renseignemens certains et précis sur le commerce d'Australie et des différens isles;—commerce qui a pris un grand essor, surtout dans les dernières années. Il a de plus l'ordre d'examiner s'il n'y aurait pas dans l'Australie un lieu propre à la colonisation, et d'en avertir le gouvernement Français.”Fitting instructions were issued by Lord Stanley to the various Governors in the south.

When the American Consul saw Gipps' New Zealand Bill, he inquired (11 June, 1840), whether it was “expected that American citizens who may have acquired by purchase or other-

– 246 –

wise lands or titles in New Zealand, shall submit their titles to the proposed Commission?”The Governor replied that he had sought instructions as “to the course to be pursued with reference to lands claimed by persons other than British subjects,”and he regretted that he could in the mean time give no more definite answer. When Gipps extended the laws of New South Wales to New Zealand, the Consul (Williams) again asked (22 June, 1840), whether the enactment was intended to “affect the commercial relations of the United States with New Zealand?”The Governor replied that it “was not intended to alter in any way the commercial relations between any part of the territory comprised between the limits of this Government and the United States, it being indeed incompetent for the legislature of any colony to pass laws affecting its relations with foreign powers. Sir G. Gipps deems it right, however, in making this communication, to add that New Zealand having been placed by Her Majesty under this Government, the trade between it and all foreign countries will be governed, he presumes, by the laws which regulate the general trade of the Empire, although he has as yet received no communications from Her Majesty's Government on the subject.”The Consul inferred that “all cases having reference to citizens of the United States residing at New Zealand or resorting thither for the purposes of trade, will remain upon the same footing as in former years,”and questions arising would be referred to England and America. The Governor coincided as to reference of disputes; but although he could “not pledge himself that the intercourse between citizens of the United States and the people of New Zealand shall remain exactly on the same footing as at present, he will endeavour (and especially with regard to the whale fishery and the curing of whale oil) to obviate any cause of complaint, so far as it may be in his power to do so.”The Governor told Lord John Russell (23 July, 1840), that the question might affect the Consul's countrymen as land claimants, whale fishers, and importers. There had hitherto been no customs duties or port-charges in New Zealand. He proposed to postpone inquiries as to titles of foreigners to land until he had disposed of claims of Her Majesty's subjects; to allow whale fishing to go on as before till the Queen's pleasure might be known; and to

– 247 –

make payments by foreigners of customs duties commence on the 1st July, 1841.

Lord John Russell consulted Lord Palmerston. He thought the rules with regard to titles ought “to be relaxed in favour of any aliens possessing lands in New Zealand by virtue of valid titles acquired previous to the Proclamation of the Queen's sovereignty there.”Lord Palmerston deemed the proposal “liberal but just.”Though such claimants could not reasonably object to be called upon to prove their titles, “yet, as in the case of a conquered colony, it would not be just to apply retrospectively to aliens, who had become landowners before the islands formed part of the dominions of the British crown, the law which prevents aliens from acquiring landed property within those dominions.”

To have recognized all claims without inquiry would have been, however, to invite successful fraud. There was one citizen of the United States—a runaway from a whaling vessel and a Pakeha Maori trading in pigs, &c.—who might have asked for all the winding shores of the Hauraki Gulf.

The despatches of Sir George Gipps had warned the Government of the danger of such claims (designated by Lord Palmerston, in 1842, as too “extravagant and frivolous”to be allowed), and Hobson was instructed by Lord John Russell (17th March, 1841) that except in special cases (to be referred to England), “where aliens have acquired lands from chiefs prior to your Proclamation, and that fact is undisputed, the claims must be acknowledged; but where a doubt arises whether the alien made a bonâ fide purchase of the land, the settler must be treated as a British subject, and his claim disposed of accordingly.”The exorbitance of claims was the only safeguard against the abuse of the diversity of proofs permitted by Lord John Russell. Hobson was perplexed by the incongruity, and in March, 1842, sought more definite instructions, on the occasion of an application from a Belgian subject, who was scrupulous as to taking the oath of allegiance which Hobson thought necessary. Hobson, in the same month, pointed out that he had been directed in 1840 to cause Baron de Thierry's claims to be investigated in the same manner “as the claims of all other persons, British and foreign.”As these

– 248 –

“conflicting directions”(both Lord John Russell's) left Hobson in doubt as to the mode in which foreign claims were to be dealt with, he asked for instructions, and craved pardon for suggesting “that foreigners are not deserving of exemption from regulations imposed on Her Majesty's subjects.”Lord Stanley told him (6th December, 1842), that “whenever it was doubted that the alien had made a bonâ fide purchase, the doubt must be solved by the same process of investigation that was settled for British subjects;”and that “besides requiring the oath of allegiance from an alien previously to his receiving a grant of land, an Act should be passed, naturalizing such alien.”As there could scarcely be a case in which the validity of the purchase by speculative adventurers in New Zealand was undoubted, Lord Stanley's attempt to reconcile his predecessor's contradictions afforded a modus decidendi, but it was unfair to Hobson to add that the Colonial Office could see “no discrepancy between the two instructions.”¹ The strong hand of Governor Gipps was capable of maintaining order, but the demolition of his control by Lord J. Russell remitted New Zealand to the care of men less able to maintain the rights of the Crown without needless discussion of principles of international law. The question of custom duties elicited a petition from citizens of the United States, who complained to their countrymen of loss by reason of the high duty (which they declared illegal) on spirits. The United States Minister asked for compensation. Lord Stanley was informed that British subjects had equal ground of complaint, and that the Consul for the United States (a British subject) was a member “of the Legislative Council, and helped to pass the Act complained of.”The Custom House, moreover, had only demanded the bonding of, or the payment of duty on, the goods.

Subsequently Governor Fitzroy remonstrated against the consignment of seven thousand pounds of gunpowder and fifteen cases of muskets to a person acting as Consul for the United States. Representations were made to America, and President Buchanan sent fitting instructions to the new Consul, but

– 249 –

thought it unnecessary to rebuke the offender, who “never held an appointment direct from the United States Government.”

On its being pointed out by Governor Fitzroy, in 1845, that the United States' Consul, and the consignee of the gunpowder, had, as well as the French bishop Pompallier, fomented troubles at the Bay of Islands, where some disreputable persons incited disturbances, Lord Stanley (15th October, 1845) was incisive in his instructions to the new Governor, Grey: “You will propose to the local legislature the enactment of a law authorizing the removal of aliens from New Zealand if any doubt should be entertained by your legal advisers as to the existence of that right without the aid of a positive law.”At the same time the Governor was to “observe the utmost caution and circumspection in the exercise of such a power.”

It seemed convenient to class together the correspondence concerning foreign claims and the conduct of foreigners, but it is necessary now to recur to Governor Hobson's general proceedings in 1840.

When presenting the address from the company's settlers Colonel Wakefield had made so favourable an impression on Hobson that the latter asked Gipps to send magisterial commissions for Wakefield and two other persons. One of them Gipps immediately appointed, but added (11th June, 1840), “until I have an official report of an entire submission to the authority of Her Majesty by the settlers at Port Nicholson I can scarcely feel myself authorized to place any persons connected with that settlement in the commission of the peace. This of course will not prevent your sending to Port Nicholson any magistrate unconnected with the settlement or with the company under whose direction the settlement has been formed.”With regard to another matter at the same time, Gipps arrested Hobson in an error for which Lord Stanley subsequently condemned him. The impressible Hobson had made a preliminary arrangement to purchase from a Mr. Clendon, by granting thirty times its area elsewhere, a piece of land for a township on the Kawa Kawa river at the Bay of Islands, and by paying to Clendon a considerable rent for a term. Gipps pointed out that Clendon could have no title; that the bill in preparation would prevent the Land Claim Commissioners from

– 250 –

recognizing claims to sites suitable for towns; and that Gipps was constrained to “decline to become a party to any engage-which would seem to be contrary to so important a principle, and which might also form a very inconvenient precedent. I must further observe that the purchase of lands from any other parties than the aboriginal possessors of them does not seem to me to be one of the objects for which I am authorized by the Lords of the Treasury to make advances out of the Crown revenue for New South Wales.”But the effective control of Gipps was soon to be discontinued. Under powers conferred by statute, the Crown (by letters patent in November, 1840) formally separated New Zealand from the Government of New South Wales, declaring the North Island to be New Ulster, the Middle Island New Munster, and Stewart Island New Leinster,—names destined soon to disappear.

It will be proper to give two instances of the characteristic manner in which Sir George Gipps used his power while it remained with him. Hobson reported that Dr. Martin, a settler “of integrity and reputation,”was alarmed. He had made large, pretended, purchases at the Thames. He had a saw-mill. Under the Land Claims Act he feared that the Commissioners might cut down his claims. Even if they should award him the maximum allowed by Gipps' Act, the terrible consequence might be that the quantity awarded would be insufficient to supply his mill with timber. Gipps replied (5th December, 1840): “This, however, may be the case, and still no injustice done to Dr. Martin, as I can see no more reason that all the timber sawn at a mill should be grown on his own land than that all the wheat or other grain ground at a mill in England or elsewhere should be produced on land the property of the miller.”

In one respect Gipps had not grasped the difficulties of land purchase in New Zealand. Outside of the missionary circle no one appears to have understood the ardent attachment of Maoris to their hereditary tenure. Gipps told Hobson (30th November, 1840), that where the chiefs admitted that a sale had been made, their titles were to be considered extinct, whether “or not the whole or any portion of the land be confirmed to the purchasers or pretended purchasers.”In cases

– 251 –

of insufficient consideration Hobson, in concert with the Protector, was to award further compensation to the chiefs.

Two vices were thus sanctioned: robbery of a tribe because one or more chiefs had agreed to sell their interest in land; and recognition of a contention that a bad transaction could be made good by compelling him who had been cheated to accept from a third party compensation which the sufferer might deem insufficient. And yet Sir George Gipps might have suspected that the words of Tacitus—Agri pro numero cultorum ab universis in vices occupantur—were applicable to the Maoris. The vicious principles which he was willing to sanction were ere long put in practice; not perhaps because he in ignorance approved them, but because only by their means could the company's purchase at Port Nicholson be retained. But it was under no blandishment or threat that Gipps yielded to error. The company could not overpower him as they did Lord John Russell. The flagrant manner in which Colonel Wakefield had pretended to buy an enormous tract at Wanganui; Henry Williams' endeavour to lock up the land in trust for the Maoris; E. J. Wakefield's endorsement of Williams' document as “an arrant falsehood,”and his own shameful method of completing his uncle's bad deeds, have been mentioned. It has also been stated that the deputation to Sir G. Gipps (Dr. Evans, Mr. Hanson, and Mr. Moreing), returned to Wellington with a decision recognizing under certain conditions the Wellington settlement, but limiting the company's claim to 110,000 acres to be selected in one block adjacent to Port Nicholson; and that a public meeting at Wellington in December, 1840, unanimously thanked Gipps for his “justice and liberality.”Nevertheless, presuming upon the weakness of Hobson, the distance of Gipps from the scene of action, and the reported influence of the company upon Lord John Russell, Colonel Wakefield conceived and attempted to execute a nefarious design to allot amongst his settlers lands at Wanganui and at Taranaki far removed from the locality to which the company's selections were confined. The “Surveyor-General”of the company published notices that plans of the districts were ready for inspection, and that selections would be made on the 4th February, 1841. The precedent at Wellington was ominous

– 252 –

of evil. Even there, mistakes in the plans had been discovered, and a postponement of the selections had been necessary at the last moment; and there the Maoris had remained quiet, trusting to the assurance of Henry Williams that the Governor would send a functionary to do justice, and being similarly counselled by the powerful chief, E Puni. At Wanganui the company was boldly violating a transaction entered into by Williams. To Taranaki it was known that Wiremu Kingi te Rangitake intended to lead back some hundreds of the Ngatiawa. “There is great reason to apprehend”(Hobson wrote afterwards to the Secretary of State) “that none of this vast territory has been legally purchased from the aborigines. But this is a question I will not prejudge.”¹ When Hobson saw the advertisement of the intended selection he hastily asked Gipps (29th December) what course he should “pursue to prevent the serious consequences which would result from apportioning lands in contravention of the conditions, reservations, and limitations on which the settlers at Port Nicholson were to remain undisturbed.”Gipps forthwith (12th January) answered: “You will, without loss of time, direct the police magistrate at Port Nicholson to notify in the most public manner possible that no such selections will be acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government, nor any titles whatever derived from the New Zealand Company beyond the limits of 110,000 acres taken in one continuous block around Port Nicholson.”

Detected in a fraud upon the conditions which he admitted were “gratefully accepted,”Wakefield, whose object seemed to be to ensure a quarrel with the Maoris, wrote a false and fulsome letter to Sydney. He desired “to comply most strictly with the law enacted by the local government regarding land in these islands,”and submitted an explanation which he could not himself have believed. “Presuming that the favourable countenance shown by His Excellency to the first settlers… would be afforded to all comers,”he “authorized a survey of the districts of Wanganui and Taranaki and the location of settlers arriving from England therein. It remains for me, therefore, to submit to His Excellency my desire to open the land for selec-

– 253 –

tion according to the terms prescribed in the instance of the district of Port Nicholson.”He knew well that the hand of Gipps would soon be removed. He wished to temporize, and, by Gibbon Wakefield's ability, to coerce the feebler mind of Lord John Russell in England. He sent a copy of his false explanation to England, and the prompted Somes laid it before Lord John Russell as a proof of “the respectful and submissive course which their agent would certainly have pursued if he had been called upon in a manner more mild. …”The Directory respectfully complained of a “peremptory and harsh manner”as calculated “to detract gratuitously from their officer's influence, and consequent usefulness.”Somes had the audacity to state (though the facts convicted Colonel Wakefield of daring disobedience) that he would “implicitly and instantly have obeyed any orders which Captain Hobson might have addressed him,”instead of appealing to the peremptory Gipps. Lord John Russell's submission to the potent company was complete. He was of opinion that Colonel Wakefield's explanatory letter (to Gipps) “deserves the praise of temperance, which the New Zealand Company claim for it.”He could hardly expect that Gipps would be duped into a like admission. He must have had a vague consciousness that he and not the Governor deserved admonition, for he told Somes (19th August, 1841,) that “the friendly relations which it was important to maintain between the Governor of New Zealand and the company's agents would, in his opinion, be rather impeded than advanced by making the subject of correspondence and admonition those misunderstandings which may unfortunately have arisen, while the parties were in ignorance of the negotiations which passed between the company and Her Majesty's Government at the close of the last year.”¹

The campaign of Gibbon Wakefield and his coadjutors in England was conducted on the principle of pouring settlers into New Zealand without any consideration as to the procurement of lands on which they were to be placed. Colonel Wakefield, on the spot, aimed at placing the settlers on lands to

– 254 –

which he knew he had no title, and for which, under Sir George Gipps, it was manifest that no legal title could be secured. The company sold land in England, and the purchasers from the company on arrival in New Zealand drew lots for sections, on which Colonel Wakefield placed them without complying with the requirements of law. At Wanganui and at Taranaki Sir George Gipps arrested this lawless procedure, and Lord John Russell condoned it in the manner just related. The company truthfully reported to Colonel Wakefield that the Colonial Office was becoming pliant.

The servants of the company became insolent in New Zealand. They called Captain Hobson “Captain Crimp,”because he attracted workmen from Cook's Straits to his new capital at Auckland. They derided him publicly and privately. They pointed triumphantly to the population which, under their loose devices, had accumulated at Wellington in greater numbers than could be found at the official colony. An affray between American sailors and Maoris at the Bay of Islands afforded Hobson an opportunity of representing the want of a military force. Lord John admitted the need, but could hold out no hope, “at least for the present,”and advised the formation of a body like the Irish police. He did not say where the materials could be found. Sir Robert Peel had made policemen of the Irish, and Hobson might, perhaps, do as much with Maoris.

When Mr. Somes angrily commented on the petition of the Rev. William Williams, and imputed it to Henry Williams—at the same time vilifying the latter—Lord John sent the correspondence to Hobson, with an intimation that he looked to Somes and to Williams “for co-operation in establishing friendly relations